Pages

Sunday, 15 October 2017

What are essential requirement for prosecution of a person on allegation of criminal conspiracy?

I find that as regards the accused Nos.8 to 12, who are being prosecuted on the allegation of criminal conspiracy, things are not quite clear. It is settled that even knowledge of the criminal design may not be sufficient to prosecute a person on the allegation of criminal conspiracy. What is required is active meeting of minds to carry out a criminal design. Such elements are, to a small extent, doubtful in the case of the accused Nos.8 to 12. But, clear circumstances including direct evidence are there as against the accused Nos.1 to 7.But the accused Nos.8 to 10 can be granted bail on conditions, because the allegation as against them is a feeble allegation of criminal conspiracy. Definite materials are not there to indicate that these three persons had active meeting of minds with the others, constituting a clear case of criminal conspiracy.

Kerala High Court

RINEESH N.P,vs STATE OF KERALA,

PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

Bail Appl..No. 6287 of 2017

Dated: 27th day of September 2017

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 10 in Crime No.510/2017 of Payyannur Police Station registered under Sections 302, 506(ii), 143, 147, 148, 120B, 324 and 307 read withSection 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They seek regular bail underSection 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by some of them for regular bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery on 21.8.2017.

2. This is a case of gruesome political murder. One Biju was allegedly murdered by the accused Nos.1 to 5. The other accused are said to be the persons, who either facilitated the commision of offence, or hatched a conspiracy to do away with Biju. Biju was murdered at about 3.35 p.m. on 12.5.2017 at Ramanthali. While he and his friend Rajesh were riding on a motor cycle, they were obstructed by the accused Nos.1 to 5, who came there in a car. The accused Nos.1 to 3 inflicted fatal injuries on the body of Biju, and they attacked his friend Rajesh also in an attempt on his life. Within no time, Biju succumbed to B.A. No.6287 of 2017 the fatal injuries. The application for bail filed by these petitioners was disallowed by the learned Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that these accused are involved in so many other crimes. The accused Nos.1 to 5 are the persons, who actually perpetrated and committed the murder of Biju. The 4th accused is yet to be arrested by the police. It appears that he has vanished from the locality. The accused Nos.6, 11 and 12 are already on bail. I find that as regards the accused Nos.8 to 12, who are being prosecuted on the allegation of criminal conspiracy, things are not quite clear. It is settled that even knowledge of the criminal design may not be sufficient to prosecute a person on the allegation of criminal conspiracy. What is required is active meeting of minds to carry out a criminal design. Such elements are, to a small extent, doubtful in the case of the accused Nos.8 to 12. But, clear circumstances including direct evidence are there as against the accused Nos.1 to 7.

3. The police report shows that the 1st accused is involved in 15 other crimes; most of the crimes involving very serious offences, the 2nd accused (not an applicant here) is involved in 13 other crimes, the 3rd accused is involved in two other crimes, the 5th accused is involved in three other crimes, B.A. No.6287 of 2017 and the 7th accused is involved in eight other crimes. As against the accused Nos.8 to 10, there is no other crime. The accused Nos.6 and 7 are said to be the persons, who facilitated the commission of offence by the accused Nos.1 to 5. The allegation as against them is not merely criminal conspiracy. Their active presence and involvement as facilitators is made out by the prosecution records. But the circumstances as against others are quite different. They are the accused Nos.8 to 10. The police report does not show that the 6th accused is a man of bad antecedents. No other crime is seen reported against him. That is why, probably he was granted bail. The circumstances of the 7th accused are different, because he is involved in so many other crimes, including crimes involving the offence under the PDPP Act, under Section 436 IPC, etc. Of the eight crimes reported against him, three crimes prominently involve the offence under Section 436 IPC, one involve the offence underSections 307, 353 and 332 IPC, and one involve the offence under Section 435 IPC. As regards the bad antecedents and involvement in criminal cases, he and the accused Nos.1 to 5 are in equal position. The circumstances of the 7th accused are different from that of the 6th accused, who is already on bail. B.A. No.6287 of 2017

4. On a perusal of the materials, I find the definite possibility of the trial process being obstructed by the accused. The police has already submitted final report before the court on 4.8.2017. The interests of the prosecution and also the broader interests of the society require and demand that the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 7 must continue in custody. I feel it inappropriate to grant bail to the accused Nos 1 to 3, 5 and 7.

5. But the accused Nos.8 to 10 can be granted bail on conditions, because the allegation as against them is a feeble allegation of criminal conspiracy. Definite materials are not there to indicate that these three persons had active meeting of minds with the others, constituting a clear case of criminal conspiracy. It is made clear that this order rejecting bail will not stand in the way of the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 7 making application before the trial court, in due course of trial.

In the result, this application is allowed in part. The request for bail by the accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 7 will stand disallowed, without prejudice to their right to seek bail afresh from the trial court in due course of trial.

But the accused Nos.8 to 10 (petitioners 7 to 9) are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each B.A. No.6287 of 2017to the satisfaction of the court below having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;

a. The petitioners 7 to 9 shall not in any manner obstruct the trial, or influence or threaten the witnesses.

b. The petitioners 7 to 9 shall not leave the limits of Kannur Revenue District till trial of the case is over, unless otherwise permitted by the trial court.